Board Minutes AAB/7/2019-20

ANTIQUITIES ADVISORY BOARD

Minutes of the 191st Meeting on Thursday, 10 December 2020 at 2:30 pm at Conference Room, Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre, Kowloon Park, Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon

Present: Mr Douglas SO Cheung-tak, JP (Chairman) Ms Vanessa CHEUNG Tih-lin# Prof CHING May-bo# Prof CHU Hoi-shan# Mr HO Kui-yip#, JP Mr Tony IP Chung-man# Mr Peter LAU Man-pong# Mr Christopher LAW Kin-chung#, JP Dr Jane LEE Ching-yee#, JP Mr LEE Ping-kuen#, JP Prof Phyllis LI Chi-miu#, BBS Mr Ronald LIANG# Dr Annissa LUI Wai-ling#, JP Ms Theresa NG Choi-yuk#, JP Mr SHUM Ho-kit#, JP Mr Rex WONG Siu-han#, JP Dr Sharon WONG Wai-yee# Prof YAU Chi-on# Miss Theresa YEUNG Wing-shan# Ms Alice YIP Ka-ming#

Ms Shirley YEUNG (Secretary) Senior Executive Officer (Antiquities and Monuments) 2 Antiquities and Monuments Office

Absent with Apologies: Prof CHIU Yu-lok

In Attendance: Development Bureau

Mr Ivanhoe CHANG Commissioner for Heritage [C for H]

Mr Ben LO Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 2 [CAS(W)2]

Mr Allen FUNG* Political Assistant to Secretary for Development [PA to SDEV]

Mr SHUM Jin* Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 2 [AS(HC)2]

Ms Joey LEE Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3 [AS(HC)3]

Ms Angela LEE* Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 4 [AS(HC)4]

Mr Eddie WONG* Senior Executive Manager (Heritage Conservation) [SEM(HC)]

Ms Natalie NG* Engineer (Heritage Conservation) 2 [E(HC)2]

Mr Ken AU* Acting Senior Information Officer (Development) 2 [Atg SIO(DEV)2]

Antiquities and Monuments Office

Ms Susanna SIU Executive Secretary (Antiquities and Monuments) [ES(AM)]

Mr Vincent LEE* Senior Architect (Antiquities & Monuments) 1 [SA(AM)1]

Ms Teresa LEUNG* Senior Architect (Antiquities & Monuments) 2 [SA(AM)2]

Ms Rebecca CHEUNG* Curator (Historical Buildings) 2 [C(HB)2]

Miss Pauline POON* Assistant Curator I (Building Survey) 1 [ACI(BS)1]

Architectural Services Department

Mr Alan SIN# Assistant Director (Property Services) [AD(PS)]

Ms CHAN Mei-kuen* Senior Maintenance Surveyor / Heritage [SMS/H]

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Miss Eve TAM# Assistant Director (Heritage & Museum) [AD(H&M)]

Planning Department

Ms April KUN# Assistant Director of Planning / Metro [AD/M]

(Note#: Participants attended the meeting by videoconferencing to facilitate social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)

(Note*: Government officers seated in the Lecture Hall of the Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre (“HDC”) to view live broadcasting of the meeting held at the Conference Room of HDC to facilitate social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed Members and government representatives to the meeting conducted by videoconferencing in view of the latest development of the COVID-19 pandemic. He also welcomed Mr Ivanhoe CHANG, who had taken over from Mr José YAM as the Commissioner for Heritage, and thanked Mr YAM for his support to the Board all along.

Item 1 Confirmation of Minutes of the 190th Meeting held on 10 September 2020 (Board Minutes AAB/6/2019-20)

2. The minutes of the 190th Meeting held on 10 September 2020 were confirmed without amendment.

Item 2 Matters Arising and Progress Report (Board Paper AAB/28/2019-20)

3. ES(AM) briefed Members on the progress of major heritage conservation issues and activities from 1 August to 15 November 2020, including preservation, restoration and maintenance of historic buildings and structures, archaeological work, and educational and publicity activities detailed in the Board paper. In addition, she shared with Members that the “Restoration of Duddell Street Steps and Gas Lamps” project, with the joint efforts of the Antiquities and Monuments Office (“AMO”), the Highways Department and The Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited (“Towngas”), had been awarded with two Special Architectural Awards by Hong Kong Institute of Architects (“HKIA”) in its Annual Awards 2019/20, i.e. “Heritage & Adaptive Re-use” and “Architectural Research”, and thanked Members for their great support and valuable advice 5 throughout.

4. Prof CHU Hoi-shan commended the parties concerned for making the restoration project a great success. He told Members that he was invited to be the moderator in a sharing session held by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) at HDC on 25 November 2020 to share with participants the background, technical issues and the importance of joint-departmental coordination of the restoration project. He was proud of the concerted efforts taken by all parties involved in their upholding firmly to the principle of restoring the historic monument using original materials and traditional craftsmanship, otherwise the project would not be so fruitful and being awarded with two Special Architectural Awards by HKIA for the first time. The Chairman echoed his views and thanked all parties involved on behalf of the Board.

5. Dr Sharon WONG enquired about the follow-up work of the archaeological project undertaken by Mr Steven NG Wai-hung (Ref. AAB/3/2019- 20 of Annex D to this Board paper) who was deceased recently. ES(AM) replied that AMO had been working with Mr NG’s team on the final report of his archaeological project.

Item 3 Heritage Impact Assessment in respect of the Revitalisation of the Former Lau Fau Shan Police Station (Board Paper AAB/29/2019-20)

6. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of Hong Kong Guide Dogs Academy Limited (the “Academy Ltd.”), as well as its project and heritage consultants (the “FLFSPS Project Team”) to the meeting to present the heritage impact assessment (“HIA”) of the proposed works to convert the Former Lau Fau Shan Police Station (“FLFSPS”), a Grade 3 historic building, into “FLFSPS – Hong Kong Guide Dogs Academy (the “Academy”)” (the “Academy Project”) for breeding and training guide dogs for visually impaired people, as well as for training service dogs to provide outreach services for people in need, adding that the Academy Project was one of the projects under Batch V of the Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme (“Revitalisation Scheme”) under Development Bureau (“DEVB”):

(i) Mr WP LAM# Chairperson, the Academy Ltd. 6

(ii) Ms Fanny ANG Director, ANG Studio Limited

(iii) Mr Franklin LEUNG Architect, Design Consultants Ltd.

(iv) Mr Calvin KWOK Associate, Thomas Chow Architects Limited

(Note: Mr Addy WONG, Board Member of the Academy Ltd., and Mr MOK Kim- wing, user of the guide dog of the Hong Kong Guide Dogs Association Limited (“HKGDA Ltd.”) sat behind the FLFSPS Project Team to provide support.)

(Note#: Mr WP LAM attended the meeting by videoconferencing.)

7. With the aid of photos and layout plans, Mr WP LAM introduced to Members the background of HKGDA Ltd. and the objectives of the Academy Project. Ms Fanny ANG showed Members the location of the Academy, as well as its historic, contextual, architectural and social significance. Mr Franklin LEUNG elaborated on the proposed works while Ms Fanny ANG further explained the possible impacts on the graded FLFSPS and the proposed mitigation measures.

8. ES(AM) shared with Members AMO’s comments on the proposed works and mitigation measures detailed in Annex B to this Board paper and considered that the proposal was agreeable.

9. Before discussion, Dr Annissa LUI declared that she was an Honorary Advisor of HKGDA Ltd. and therefore would refrain from the discussion.

10. Prof Phyllis LI commented that the proposed colour scheme (i.e. army green) for the two turrets of Main Building, being one of the character-defining elements of FLFSPS, was too dark that might bring visual impact on the surrounding of Lau Fau Shan. Mr Ronald LIANG and Ms Vanessa CHEUNG also expressed concerns about the colour scheme of the Academy although they considered the Academy Project very meaningful and supported the proposal. Ms Fanny ANG explained that FLFSPS, being surrounded by greenery, was painted army green in the 1970s as camouflage to strengthen border defence. The 7 proposed colour scheme could reflect and highlight the historic and contextual values of FLFSPS and differentiate the color scheme from other police stations (pale blue). Having taken into account Members’ concerns, the FLFSPS Project Team would review the shades of green for the Academy.

11. Miss Theresa YEUNG supported the proposed works considering that the Academy Project would benefit the underprivileged people and that FLFSPS could be adaptively reused. She appreciated the efforts made by the FLFSPS Project Team in designing the heritage interpretation area as it would allow public access and facilitate the appreciation of the historic building by the public. Mr Calvin KWOK added that the balcony on the first floor of the Academy would be made accessible to the public to facilitate visitors taking photos of the beautiful scenery at Deep Bay. Ms Fanny ANG supplemented that the Academy would be open for visit by the public during operating hours and guided tours would be arranged for visitors by appointments. Considering that the visually impaired people would be the target user of the Academy, Mr Tony IP suggested that interpretation areas should be designed in such a way that the visually impaired people could also feel and comprehend the interpretation contents.

12. Mr SHUM Ho-kit shared with Members that he knew about the Academy Project during his last term as Yuen Long District Council member and had visited FLFSPS before. He supported the proposal from the heritage conservation perspective. In addition, he opined that it was hard to find a place for training guide dogs in Hong Kong, so the Academy would serve the purpose. Besides, the Academy could also be a new tourist attraction in Lau Fau Shan.

13. Mr Christopher LAW supported the proposal, in particular, the proposed new function of FLFSPS for guide dogs breeding and training could carry the notion of its original use for disciplinary force. He commented that the overall layout setting of the Academy Project was good and suggested exploring to restore the existing aluminum windows with steel windows, which was commonly used in the period, to reflect the original design of the post-war built FLFSPS. Mr Calvin KWOK and Ms Fanny ANG explained that there was limited information on the ironmongeries and architectural details of the steel windows used before but the FLFSPS Project Team would try to explore more details. Besides, the restoration of aluminum windows to steel windows would depend on further budget review as some technical problems, such as meeting certain installation and waterproof standard requirements, would be encountered during restoration. 8

14. Dr Jane LEE said that she had vetted the details of the Academy Project, as well as those in respect of the revitalization of the Watervale House, Former Gordon Hard Camp which would be discussed in the next agenda item, in her advisory capacity of the Advisory Committee on Built Heritage Conservation. She supported both proposals.

15. In response to Ms Theresa NG’s enquiry on the noise nuisance which might be brought about by visitors and vehicles disturbing the quiet use of the Academy by the guide dogs and visually impaired users, Mr Calvin KWOK replied that a preliminary environmental assessment had been conducted and it was considered that the noise level would be manageable. Firstly, the Academy was rather remote and it was not located near any main road. Noise brought by the visiting vehicles would not cause nuisance. Secondly, the guided tours would be arranged restrictively, i.e. only one session on weekdays would be arranged, four sessions at weekends (i.e. once respectively in the morning and afternoon sessions), and only by appointments on public holidays. It was expected that the number of visitors would be controllable. Moreover, the public accessible area and the rooms used by guided dogs and visually impaired users were separately zoned at the Academy, so visitors would not affect the guided dog training and live-in training services.

16. Mr Ronald LIANG understood the importance of having air- conditioning system in view of the complicated usage of the interior of the Academy. However, he expressed concern that the outdoor air-conditioning units to be placed on the roof would induce visual impact and enquired if there would be other ways to install the outdoor units. Besides, he wished that all big trees within the Academy could be retained. Mr Calvin KWOK explained that the outdoor air-conditioning units to be placed on the roof would mainly serve the function rooms on the first floor. The roof was considered the most suitable place as it required the least provision of refrigerant pipes which would in return bring a minimal impact to the building. In fact, majority of the outdoor air-conditioning units would be installed under the newly-built staircase and outside the new electrical and mechanical room which were areas of less significance and not easily seen by the public to minimise visual impact on the building appearance. Regarding the trees, tree assessment had been conducted and most of the trees would be retained except that a few unhealthy ones would be removed.

17. Prof CHING May-bo stressed the historical and contextual significances of FLFSPS, taking into account that FLFSPS was not only a police station or a border post but also a place that witnessed the social and demographic changes in the society. Moreover, as the FLFSPS was located at the opposite side of Shekou where the Shekou Museum of China’s Reform and Opening Up（中國改革開放蛇口博物館） had recently been opened, FLFSPS was geographically fit for showcasing the development of post-war relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

18. Dr Sharon WONG suggested that the FLFSPS’s Project Team should consider using audio navigation to interpret the two distinctive turrets of FLFSPS’s Main Building during the guided tour. She shared the example of Old Sheung Shui Police Station (Grade 2, currently housing the Junior Police Corps Club House), where the docent of guided tours would highlight the architectural values of its corner observation towers which was one of its very distinctive character- defining elements. Besides, she supported the proposal of making use of the heritage interpretation area of the Academy to highlight the cultural landscape of Lau Fau Shan in relation to its oyster cultivation history. She also invited the FLFSPS Project Team to make reference to some successful examples of interpretation centers such as the revitalized Green Hub in Tai Po (Old Tai Po Police Station, Grade 1) and Old Ping Shan Police Station in Yuen Long (Grade 2), as well as the Police Museum in the Peak.

19. With no further views from Members, the Chairman concluded that the Board endorsed the HIA report and the proposed mitigation measures. The FLFSPS Project Team would take Members’ comments into account and further consultation with the Board was not required.

(Dr Jane LEE left the meeting at around 15:40)

Item 4 Heritage Impact Assessment in respect of the Revitalisation of the Watervale House, Former Gordon Hard Camp (Board Paper AAB/30/2019-20)

20. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of The Tuen Mun Soul Oasis Foundation Limited, as well as its project and heritage consultants (the “Oasis Project Team”) to the meeting to present the HIA of the proposed works to revitalize the Watervale House, Former Gordon Hard Camp, a Grade 2 10 historic building, into “Tuen Mun Soul Oasis (“the Oasis”)” (the “Oasis Project”) as a place for people to retreat and enjoy at leisure, adding that the Oasis Project was one of the projects under Batch V of the Revitalisation Scheme under DEVB:

(i) Mr Andrew CHEUNG Managing Director, PKNG and Associates (HK) Limited

(ii) Mr Denis NG Chief Operating Officer, The Tuen Mun Soul Oasis Foundation Limited

(iii) Mr Ivan HO Director, The Team Consultant

21. With the aid of photos and layout plans, Mr Andrew CHEUNG introduced to Members the location and the background of the Watervale House, as well as its historical and architectural merits. He also elaborated on the proposed works and the possible impacts on the graded Watervale House and the proposed mitigation measures. Mr Denis NG supplemented on the objectives of the Oasis Project, and shared with Members the operating hours, the guided tour and the Showrooms (for exhibitions) of the Oasis.

(Ms Vanessa CHEUNG left the meeting at around 16:30)

22. Prof CHU Hoi-shan declared that he was a voluntary coordinator assisting Professor LEE Check-fan’s Fund (the proponent of the Oasis Project) during the initial proposal submission stage of the Oasis Project. He would, therefore, withdraw from the discussion.

23. ES(AM) shared with Members AMO’s comments on the proposed works and mitigation measures detailed in Annex B to this Board paper and considered that the proposal was agreeable to AMO.

24. Prof YAU Chi-on supported the Oasis Project considering that the Oasis could provide a venue for spiritual wellness through the learning of Zen and furthering social culture and history education. Regarding the historical elements, he suggested including other highlights in Tuen Mun such as Sam Shing Temple (Grade 2), Hau Kok Tin Hau Temple, some ancestral halls of So Kwun Wat and historic buildings of Tsing Lung Tau in the route of the guided tour of the Oasis, so as to link up the heritage of the vicinity. He also suggested expanding the 11 scope to cover the historical development of Castle Peak Road with the scenery along the way up to Tsing Lung Tau to enhance the attractiveness of the Oasis. He commented that Castle Peak Road had opened up the transportation system of the New Territories which was of high importance. Dr Sharon WONG echoed and added that considering Tuen Mun was one of the sites in the New Territories with high archaeological interest, she suggested making good use of the two exhibition rooms (i.e. Showrooms 1 and 2) for staging regular and thematic exhibitions to introduce Tuen Mun’s early history. For instance, the linkage of Maritime Silk Road and the Maritime Trade Routes from Guangzhou （廣州通海夷道） in Tang dynasty and Tuen Mun, and some important archeological sites such as Lung Kwu Sheung Tan and So Kwun Wat could be displayed. She also quoted examples of Ceramic Kiln (Grade 3) and Hoh Fuk Tong Centre on Castle Peak Road for implementing the “point-line-plane” approach.

(Mr Ronald LIANG left the meeting at around 16:40)

25. Mr Denis NG thanked for the above comment and supplemented that cultural tours along the coast of Tuen Mun would be organised to introduce the history of the place. Other than that, some nearby historical military trails, ancestral halls and temples in Tuen Mun and the New Territories would also be covered in the route of the guided tour for participant to understand the military defence heritage site and the religious characteristics and culture of Hong Kong and its vicinity. The Oasis Project Team would take Members’ comments into account to further enrich the heritage interpretation in the Oasis Project.

26. Mr Christopher LAW agreed with the adaptive re-use concept of the Oasis Project in terms of its usage (i.e. having a restaurant in Main Block with the interior preserved as far as possible to showcase the atmosphere of the original residence and military mess). Besides, he noted from the layout plans that the proposed restaurant extended to the area outside the archways of the Main Block, and wondered if that area was originally a verandah, considering that bungalow type buildings were usually surrounded by wide open verandahs to shade the interior from intense sun in the old days. In view that bungalow type buildings were commonly built in South Australia in the past, and Mr. Octabius Arthur SMITH, the first owner of the Watervale House, was an Australian, he suggested the Oasis Project Team to further study the historical background of the Watervale House so as to enrich the interpretation of the historical value of the building. He added that some clues on the original design might be found by examining the level difference between the exterior part outside the archways and the interior part 12 of the proposed restaurant. Mr Andrew CHEUNG replied that although the level of the two parts was currently flat, the Oasis Project Team would further study the historical information regarding the archways and the possible verandah. Separately, he supplemented for Members’ information that there was a covered verandah at the east façade of Extension adjoining the Zen Garden.

27. Prof CHING May-bo was amazed by the many archways inside the residence of the Watervale House. She wished that a multi-layer interpretation of the Watervale House’s history could be reflected by considering that the building had been occupied by four different owners of rich and interesting backgrounds in the old days. In particular, she highlighted the controversial background of Mr FENG Rui（馮銳）, the second owner of the Watervale House.

28. Mr Tony IP appreciated the adoption of greenery landscape in the Oasis Project but opined that the barrier free access ramp at the entrance was not in harmony with the hard landscape of the accessible car parking space at the external open space on the west side of Main Block. He suggested raising the floor level of the external open space so as to shorten the ramp for better integrating the hard landscape with the soft. Besides the raised level could do away with the stair steps at the back of the kitchen thus facilitate delivery of goods to the kitchen, and so that the ramp would not be used for delivering goods. In addition, the design of the open corridor between Main Block and Extension could be adjusted in order to identify ways to allow the two toilets to receive sunlight and have natural ventilation.

29. Dr Annissa LUI appreciated the three different gardens (i.e. Reflective Wood Garden, Zen Garden and the English style Healing Garden) in the Oasis. In particular, the Zen Garden could integrate the outdoor (i.e. the garden) with the indoor (i.e. the Extension). She wished that more efforts could be made in designing the Healing Garden as it would be a good place for self-reflection and meditation. Ms Theresa NG appreciated and supported the proposal.

(Ms Theresa NG left the meeting at around 17:00)

30. With no further views from Members, the Chairman concluded that the Board endorsed the HIA report and the proposed mitigation measures. The Oasis Project Team would take Members’ comments into account and further consultation with the Board was not required.

Item 5 Assessment of Historic Buildings (Board Paper AAB/31/2019-20)

Confirmation of Proposed Grading for New Items

31. C(HB)2 recapped that the Board had endorsed the proposed grading of the following three items at the meeting on 10 September 2020:

(i) Second Street Public Bathhouse, Junction of Second Street and Western Street, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 2 (Serial No. N348);

(ii) No. 112 Jervois Street, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N329); and

(iii) No. 24 Nga Tsin Long Road, Kowloon City, Kowloon, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. N334).

In line with the established practice, a one-month public consultation on the proposed grading of the above three items was conducted from 18 September to 18 October 2020.

32. C(HB)2 reported that no written submission had been received on the proposed grading status of the three items.

33. Members had no comment and agreed to confirm the proposed grading for the three items set out in paragraph 31 above.

Confirmation of Proposed Grading for Items with Objections

34. C(HB)2 briefed Members that among the 1 444 buildings considered by the Board in 2009, the proposed grading of some of them had not yet been confirmed due to objections received during public consultation earlier. Since December 2016, the Board had been invited to confirm the proposed grading of these buildings by batches. For this meeting, Members were invited to confirm the proposed grading of the following three items:

(i) St. John’s Cathedral, New Hall, Nos. 4-8 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 2 (Serial No. 385);

(ii) Nos. 405 & 407 Shek O Village, Stanley, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. 878); and

(iii) Yau Ancestral Hall, Ng Tung Chai, Tai Po, New Territories, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. 923).

The objection letters / telephone enquiry record and replies in respect of the above three items had been provided to Members before the meeting.

35. With the aid of photos, C(HB)2 recapped the heritage value and the latest condition of the above items. Examples of similar types of graded buildings were also shown for Members’ reference.

St. John’s Cathedral, New Hall, Nos. 4-8 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 2 (Serial No. 385)

36. C(HB)2 reported that the Provincial Secretary General of The Provincial Office, Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui objected to the proposed Grade 2 status as he considered that the New Hall was not worth grading and was concerned that the grading might hinder the property rights of the church building. The Provincial Secretary General also submitted an objection letter to the Board prior to the meeting reiterating his views. The independent Historic Buildings Assessment Panel (the “Assessment Panel”), after reviewing the written objections and the information provided by the Provincial Secretary General, upheld the proposed grading of the New Hall as no new information on the heritage value of the building was provided.

37. In response to the Chairman’s enquiry, ES(AM) replied that AMO had not received any redevelopment plans in respect of the site so far.

38. With no further view, Members agreed to confirm the proposed Grade 2 status for St. John’s Cathedral, New Hall, Nos. 4-8 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong (Serial No. 385).

Nos. 405 & 407 Shek O Village, Stanley, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. 878)

39. C(HB)2 reported that the owner of Nos. 405 & 407 Shek O Village objected to the proposed Grade 3 status, considering that the building was not 15 worth the proposed grading. The Assessment Panel, after reviewing the written objections and the information provided by the owner, upheld the proposed grading of Nos. 405 & 407 Shek O Village as no new information on the heritage value of the building was provided.

40. Members had no comment on the proposed grading and agreed to confirm the proposed Grade 3 status for Nos. 405 & 407 Shek O Village, Stanley, Hong Kong (Serial No. 878).

[Post-meeting notes: An objection letter on the proposed grading from the owner’s representative dated 4 December 2020 came to the notice of the subject officers on 11 December 2020. Upon receipt of the objection letter, an urgent Assessment Panel meeting was immediately convened to study and advise on the submission. The Assessment Panel, after reviewing and discussing the objection letter, concluded that there was no new information on the heritage value of Nos. 405 & 407 Shek O Village that warranted a change in its proposed grading. However, given the Board had not reviewed the objection letter prior to the confirmation of the subject grading, all Members agreed to withdraw the Board’s confirmation of the proposed grading of Nos. 405 & 407 Shek O Village, and to consider afresh the confirmation of the proposed grading at another Board meeting after having regard to the latest concerns and requests of the owner.]

Yau Ancestral Hall, Ng Tung Chai, Tai Po, New Territories, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. 923)

41. C(HB)2 reported that one telephone enquiry was received during the then public consultation in 2009 expressing concern on the proposed grading of Yau Ancestral Hall and enquiring on the provision of scheme in respect of financial assistance for maintenance on built heritage. The Assessment Panel, after reviewing the views raised by the enquirer, upheld the proposed grading of Yau Ancestral Hall as no new information on the heritage value of the building was provided.

42. Members had no comment on the proposed grading and agreed to confirm the proposed Grade 3 status for Yau Ancestral Hall, Ng Tung Chai, Tai Po, New Territories (Serial No. 923).

Review of Grading Boundary of Graded Item

43. C(HB)2 recapped that the Man Ancestral Hall, Fan Tin Tsuen, San Tin, Yuen Long, New Territories (Serial No. 75) was accorded with Grade 1 status by the Board in 2010. The manager of the Man Ancestral Hall and the village elders of the Man clan in San Tin wrote to AMO on 17 January 2020 requesting to review the grading boundary of the ancestral hall to include the historic Annex Block. Correspondences between the Mans and AMO had been provided to Members before the meeting. AMO then conducted inspections to the ancestral hall and the Annex Block and did oral history interviews with the Mans on site. The Assessment Panel had also inspected the site, and examined the new information provided by the Mans against the prevailing six assessment criteria, i.e. (i) historical interest; (ii) architectural merit; (iii) group value; (iv) social value and local interest; (v) authenticity; and (vi) rarity. After deliberation, the Assessment Panel supported to extend the grading boundary to include the Annex Block.

44. As the visit to the graded item to be reviewed (i.e. Man Ancestral Hall) as well as to the other items proposed to be graded scheduled for 3 December 2020 had been cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, C(HB)2 briefed Members on the heritage value of the Man Ancestral Hall, together with the Annex Block, with the aid of photos and a video clip.

45. Mr SHUM Ho-kit enquired whether the Annex Block had been taken into consideration during the grading assessment of the Man Ancestral Hall in 2010. He opined that the Annex Block was rather functional and was only connected to the ancestral hall by an alley although he supported to extend the grading boundary to include the Annex Block. ES(AM) replied that the grading assessment in 2010 focused on the ancestral hall. The additional information recently provided by the Mans showed that the Annex Block formed part of the ancestral hall and merited high social value. Basin meals for major clan functions at the ancestral hall, such as wedding, ancestral worship and dim dang (lantern raising) were prepared at the Annex Block.

46. With no further view, Members agreed to extend the grading boundary to include the Annex Block of the Man Ancestral Hall, Fan Tin Tsuen, San Tin, Yuen Long, New Territories (Serial No. 75).

New Items for Grading Assessment

47. With the aid of photos and video clips, C(HB)2 briefed Members on the heritage value of the following eight new items and their proposed gradings:

(i) Entrance Gate, Enclosing Walls and Shrine, Yan Shau Wai, San Tin, Yuen Long, New Territories, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. N186);

(ii) Barker Road Peak Tram Station, The Peak, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N26);

(iii) Stone Pillars and Flight of Steps at the Former Main Entrance, Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (alias “Bing Tau Fa Yuen”), Albany Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N357);

(iv) Chinese War Memorial, Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (alias “Bing Tau Fa Yuen”), Albany Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N358);

(v) Former Band Stand, Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (alias “Bing Tau Fa Yuen”), Albany Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N359);

(vi) Entrance Gate Pillars on Garden Road, Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (alias “Bing Tau Fa Yuen”), Albany Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 2 (Serial No. N360);

(vii) Tunnel Portal, Gardens Fresh Water Service Reservoir, Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (alias “Bing Tau Fa Yuen”), Albany Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. N361); and

(viii) Flight of Steps leading to Fountain Terrace, Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (alias “Bing Tau Fa Yuen”), Albany Road, Central, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. N362).

Entrance Gate, Enclosing Walls and Shrine, Yan Shau Wai, San Tin, Yuen Long, New Territories, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. N186)

48. Members had no comment on the proposed grading and agreed to endorse the proposed Grade 3 status for Entrance Gate, Enclosing Walls and Shrine, Yan Shau Wai, San Tin, Yuen Long, New Territories (Serial No. N186).

Barker Road Peak Tram Station, The Peak, Hong Kong, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N26)

49. Prof Phyllis Li enquired if the entire track of the Peak Tram and the other Peak Tram stations had also been studied when proposing the grading status for Barker Road Peak Tram Station. ES(AM) explained that all Peak Tram stations, including the demolished ones, had been taken into account when assessing Barker Road Peak Tram Station. Among the four serving intermediate stations, the canopies of the other three (apart from Barker Road Peak Tram Station) had undergone alterations in recent years. In this connection, Barker Road Peak Tram Station was the only surviving historic peak tram station building which warranted grading.

50. With no further view, Members agreed to endorse the proposed Grade 1 status for Barker Road Peak Tram Station, The Peak, Hong Kong (Serial No. N26).

Stone Pillars and Flight of Steps at the Former Main Entrance, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N357); Chinese War Memorial, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N358); Former Band Stand, Proposed Grade 1 (Serial No. N359); Entrance Gate Pillars on Garden Road, Proposed Grade 2 (Serial No. N360); Tunnel Portal, Gardens Fresh Water Service Reservoir, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. N361); and Flight of Steps leading to Fountain Terrace, Proposed Grade 3 (Serial No. N362) of Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (alias “Bing Tau Fa Yuen”), Albany Road, Central, Hong Kong

51. Prof YAU Chi-on supported the proposed grading for all of the six items in Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (the “Gardens”) in view of the Gardens’ high historical value and its prominent location on Hong Kong Island, similar to that of the Guangzhou City People’s Park. Moreover, the Gardens displayed the Parsee community’s contribution to Hong Kong, and was the pioneer in afforestation on Hong Kong Island.

52. Mr LEE Ping-kuen opined that the six items in the Gardens were of high historical value.

53. Dr Sharon WONG commented that the Gardens was the earliest zoological and botanical gardens in Hong Kong. The architectural structure of the Gardens was similar to that of Kew Gardens in London, the United Kingdom and Singapore Botanic Gardens, which were both inscribed as a world heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). She also highlighted that some herbarium specimens of the Gardens had once been kept in Singapore Botanic Gardens during the Second World War.

54. Prof Phyllis Li suggested emphasising the importance and manifesting the status of the Gardens for its being the first public park built for recreation pursuant to the Public Gardens Ordinance first enacted in Hong Kong in 1870.

55. ES(AM) explained that an in-depth research and inspections at the Gardens had been conducted by AMO before the meeting. Since the Gardens had undergone numerous reconstructions, only the six pre-war items were proposed for grading. Upon finalisation of the grading status, AMO would share the research work and explore further with LCSD to carry out more activities (e.g. heritage trails, guided tours and installing QR code check points) at the Gardens for visitors to understand the history of the Gardens as a whole.

56. With no further view, Members agreed to endorse the proposed grading for the six items of the Gardens set out in paragraph 47 (iii) to (viii) above.

Item 6 Any Other Business

57. Dr Sharon WONG raised the following suggestions on archaeology for CHO, AMO and the Board’s consideration:

(i) the 208 Sites of Archaeological Interest could be classified according to their importance. Besides, there might be more than 250 underwater archaeological sites which could be studied and assessed. The data and information of those sites could be included in the online database on archaeology on the webpage of AMO or AAB. The declaration of Rock Carving at Cape Collinson in 2019 as monument reflected the importance of archaeological sites which were worthy of more 20

discussion in AAB and promotion of public archaeology;

(ii) as the heritage impact assessments and reports related to archaeological sites prepared by consultants in the context of environmental impact assessments likely contained a number of line diagrams and photographs of relics and remnants unearthed, they should be made available for photocopying or scanning for the purpose of academic research, and researchers to take photographs of the finds when inspecting them. Facilitation should also be given to researchers to promote the “archaeological work in Chinese style” in the Guangdong– Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area; and

(iii) the excavations in Tai Kwun (former Central Police Station Compound) and PMQ (former Central School), landmarks in Central, for instance, could be displayed in the permanent exhibition to enrich heritage interpretation.

Vote of Thanks to All Members and the Assessment Panel

58. Taking the opportunity of the last meeting of the current term, the Chairman thanked all Members for their support and invaluable advice given in the past two years. He also expressed his heartfelt thanks for the Assessment Panel for their efforts on grading assessment which facilitated the discussion by the Board.

59. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm.

Antiquities and Monuments Office March 2021 Ref: AMO/22-3/1